Obama's economic plan - Soak The Rich

[BeAChooser]

At it's current growth and interest earned, the surplus begins shrinking in 2017.

So why can't the assets be better invested until then? Would you keep your money in a bank account earning 1% for 9 years when you could just as safely earn 3%? Of course not ... if you had any sense. But you want the SSA to do just that?

You may delay the inevitable by investing the surplus in different ways, but it's still going to happen.

Had the SSA put contributions into the stock funds like the S&P500 70 years ago when the program first started seventy years ago, we wouldn't even be discussing this. Because the program would be flooded with asset ... so much assets that it could pay people the same as now plus meet the needs of the disabled, etc. And it would have done it without constantly raising the tax rate and maximum taxable social security earnings level. Too bad the systems creators had so little faith in the power of the free market economy.

Now wouldn't it be wonderful to transition to a program like that for the future. Well I've offered you a way to start. You take the assets that the program currently has (which the SSA says won't be needed for 9 years) and you use those assets to extend the solvency of the program by investing them more wisely. By investing them in some of the big stock index funds. Good for SS. Good for the companies. Good for America. Maybe even good for the whole world. But democrats say no, can't do that.

At the same time, you need to change the way people view the program. It needs to be more of a real retirement plan. They need to take ownership ... just like Bush said. You can begin that by allowing contributors to assign a portion of the new contributions (let's see if we can get you democrats to even let 4% of the incoming contributions go) to personal accounts where they will invest in stock funds like the S&P500. Will you?

First, I doubt your additional revenue from investments is adjusted for inflation.

Fair enough. Let's consider inflation in the picture and refine some of the other numbers as well.

This link (http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/05/where_have_sp50.html ) has a chart that shows the inflation component of the S&P 500 over the last 135 years or so. It concludes that out of the 9.2% average S&P return, 2.2% was inflation so 7% was the real return. Other sources (such as http://www.simplestockinvesting.com/SP500-historical-real-total-returns.htm ) indicate the inflation adjusted return over the last 50 to 60 years from stocks has been on the order of 7.6%.

Now compare that to the current investment approach for the trust fund. For persons born in 1960, returns are estimated at between 1 percent and 2 percent in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. Note that I gave you the benefit of doubt earlier when I used 2.2% as the real growth rate for the trust as is.

Let's just see what we get if we use 7% in the calculation I did earlier. The calculator at http://www.finance.cch.com/sohoApplets/InvestmentReturn.asp tells us that in 9 years with a return of 7 percent, ignoring the relatively small added contributions to the trust during that time, 2 trillion would become 3.7 trillion in constant dollars. That's not something to sneeze at. Yet, that seems to be just what you want to do.

Even if we just keep the same system as now, we'd be fools not to put some large portion of the trust funds in stock index funds over the next 9 years and ride the same growth that business has seen for 70 years! Why is that so hard for democrats to grasp? It's as if they have no faith in this country or it's economic system.

Also, I don't see any accounting for significantly decreasing payroll contributions into the system as the baby boomers retire over the coming decades.

That's irrelevant to what I suggested we do above. It doesn't affect the calculations I did AT ALL.

But then, you haven't eliminated or replaced social security with anything by doing what you've suggested, have you?

Well that's arguable but suppose for discussion sake I agree with you for the time being? SO WHAT? Putting the trust funds in stock index funds won't have hurt things either. In fact, in all likelihood, it will buy the nincompoops who got us into this mess in the first place a little more time to figure out what to do. So what's you REAL objection?

All you've done is offered a suggestion on how to possibly get a little better return on the existing surplus that will begin disappearing in 2017. This doesn't eliminate social security. This doesn't allow young contributors to take the money they now pay into social security and invest it themselves. You've completely dodged the request.

Actually, what Bush proposed was a start to doing that. But you democrats won't even allow that measly little beginning. The truth is that you don't want to change the system because it makes people totally dependent on the government.

You take away contributions going into social security now, the surplus begins disappearing now ... not in 2017.

TOTALLY FALSE. All Bush proposed was that FOUR PERCENT of contributions go into personal accounts invested in stocks. A FOUR PERCENT reduction in new contributions to the "fund" will NOT cause the surplus to begin disappearing NOW.

 

[Meadmaker]

All the above would be funny if the consequences of Obama winning this election weren't so serious. But they are.

And all of the above would be relevant if any of those topics were on the table in this thread, but they aren't. It isn't relevant, but you might want to look for some JREF threads in the archives on the subject of school vouchers. They were probably started by me. I'm a major proponent. That is only one of your assumptions that is incorrect.

Now, back to the topic. What started that rant on all sorts of topics about what Democrats do was my assertion that any privatization plan, or variation thereof where SS included private investment in the securities market, represented massive government interference in the free market. Let's examine that assertion. Any such plan, to reduce risk, would involve the government saying that this form of investment was safe, while that form of investment was risky, and then requiring people to invest in the government approved "safe" securities.

No good can come of it. Even assuming the selection criteria were made reasonably, there would suddenly be a major incentive on the part of companies to match those criteria, so that they could be the recipient of the government mandated investment. That would skew the decision making of companies away from economically sound principles and toward government criteria. Very, very, bad. Meanwhile, the companies that met the criteria would have investments made in them not by intelligent investors investing rationally after choosing from all the alternatives, but by investors acting to fulfill a government mandate from among investments that meet government selection criteria. Surely someone who understands the free market can see that no good can possibly come of such a scheme.

One more thought. You suggested that I didn't understand risk. I'm confident I understand it better than you do, based on your comments. You have stated that there were risk mitigation strategies that got rid of most risk. Sadly, it is not the case, and it is easy enough to see why not. If someone tells you that there is a no risk, or even low risk, investment available, it means that there is someone out there giving away money.

I can explain more fully if anyone likes, but even a savings account is a risky investment. Sure, the possibility of principal loss is negligible or non-existent, but inflation can take away the purchasing power. Meanwhile, a premise of the theory of finance is that risky investments have higher returns, on average, than non-risky investments. A lot of people understand that part, but even more think they understand it, and, having failed to grasp the real significance, think they have managed to find a loophole that has high returns with low risk. Sorry, folks, no loopholes allowed.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

This is rich. A conservative who, presumably advocates for smaller government, less intrusion by the government in individuals freedoms, etc. wants to control who can buy lottery tickets. I can see it now; Joe goes into the local liquor store to buy a lottery ticket and the clerk cards him to see if he's above retirement age. If so, Joe cannot buy a lottery ticket unless he can show he's not using SS money. Riiiiight.

There are more Statists here than conservatives or liberals.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Calling Social Security a pyramid scheme is technically incorrect. It's simply a loaded term used to create fear and distrust.

What would you call a system that spends all the monies collected at the time of collection whilst telling the payees that said money would be used for their benefit in the future?

 

[BeAChooser]

Extra money flowing into the stock market does nothing to improve company growth.

You really believe that? ROTFLOL!

Let's ignore what Pelosi wants or doesn't want to do. I doubt that she has stated, as you now have twice, that investing 4% would be "the end of the world".

Well let's see what top democrats said:

“And that’s why we so strongly disagree with the President’s plan to privatize Social Security. Let me share with you why I believe the President’s plan is so dangerous. There’s a lot we can do to improve American’s retirement security, but it’s wrong to replace the guaranteed benefit that Americans have earned with a guaranteed benefit cut of forty percent or more. Make no mistake, that’s exactly what President Bush is proposing.” (Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi, “Democratic Response To State Of The Union Address,” Press Release, 2/2/05)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/29/politics/main691983.shtml "The president would "gut benefits for middle-class families," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid said in a joint statement. "

So Bush's plan to allow individuals earning under 25,000 a year to put up to 4% of the 12.4% they give to Social Security in to personal retirement accounts and those earning over 25,000 to put no more than $1,100 dollars in such accounts will "gut benefits" and is "guaranteed" to cut benefits "forty percent or more"? I imagine a lot of Social Security recipients would certainly call that "the end of the world". And by the way, what Pelosi and Reid claim is a outright LIE. But most anything coming from them, nowadays, can be characterized in that manner.

I have, however, read what you want to do, and I submit that a 2 trillion dollar influx of cash into the stock market would be far more than a blip. Do you disagree?

I used "blip" to describe what putting 4% of new contributions into the market would be. So I guess you didn't really read and understand what I said. But note that the global stock market valuation is now on the order of $50 trillion dollars. Adding 2 trillion is an increase of 4%. As you say, not the "end of the world" and who suggested dumping it in all at once. Even Bush's measly little 20 billion was going to be phased into play.

I have read that the shift in sea level necessary to produce a tsunami is about 2 feet.

 

[BeAChooser]

Once you pay your dues IT'S NOT YOUR MONEY.

I guess you told me.

And how many times have I heard democrats tell us ... "it's your money". Wait. Those weren't democrats who said that.

 

[Meadmaker]

In order not to get too technical in this thread, I started a new one describing why there is not Social Security Trust Fund, despite the rhetoric, and accounting gimmicks, touting its existence.

 

[gdnp]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
They only took 2% because most people had the good sense to die before or shortly after age rendered them unable to work.

"the good sense to die"?

I think the point MeadMaker was trying to make is that the increases in the retirement age have not kept up with increases in longevity. If people pay into the system for 45 years and collect for 5, the system stays solvent.

If people pay into the system for 45 years and collect for 20, we have a problem.

BTW, does the name "Azure" mean anything to you?

 

[BeAChooser]

I think the point MeadMaker was trying to make is that the increases in the retirement age have not kept up with increases in longevity. If people pay into the system for 45 years and collect for 5, the system stays solvent. If people pay into the system for 45 years and collect for 20, we have a problem.

Back in 1935, were the democrats who invented the Social Security System simply incapable of looking at the data on life expectancy between 1900 and then and predicting we'd live to 65 in another 20 years?

http://www.elderweb.com/images/pages/stats.gif

BTW, does the name "Azure" mean anything to you?

No, although I understand there's an island by that name.

 

[BeAChooser]

In order not to get too technical in this thread, I started a new one describing why there is not Social Security Trust Fund, despite the rhetoric, and accounting gimmicks, touting its existence.

You mean to say the Social Security Administration is lying to the American people, on top of everything else? Well that alone is enough reason to abolish it.

 

[Pookster]

So why can't the assets be better invested until then? Would you keep your money in a bank account earning 1% for 9 years when you could just as safely earn 3%? Of course not ... if you had any sense. But you want the SSA to do just that?

Never said it couldn't be, but you're still dodging the request. You're not doing away with social security, you're just trying to better manage the surplus while it exists.

Had the SSA put contributions into the stock funds like the S&P500 70 years ago when the program first started seventy years ago, we wouldn't even be discussing this. Because the program would be flooded with asset ... so much assets that it could pay people the same as now plus meet the needs of the disabled, etc. And it would have done it without constantly raising the tax rate and maximum taxable social security earnings level. Too bad the systems creators had so little faith in the power of the free market economy.

The surplus we have didn't get built into the system until the 80s. Otherwise, it's been a pay as you go system since almost the very beginning. The surplus was specifically built into the system because of the anticipated huge growth in retirees along with a significant decrease in contributors. The pay as you go system had to get over the hump of baby boomer retirements.

Now wouldn't it be wonderful to transition to a program like that for the future. Well I've offered you a way to start.

You've offered nothing. Your numbers are flaky at best. They certainly don't address what has been requested a number of times now.

At the same time, you need to change the way people view the program. It needs to be more of a real retirement plan. They need to take ownership ... just like Bush said. You can begin that by allowing contributors to assign a portion of the new contributions (let's see if we can get you democrats to even let 4% of the incoming contributions go) to personal accounts where they will invest in stock funds like the S&P500. Will you?

Sure. But then you haven't shown how you're going to offset the loss in contributions to a pay as you go system. And, no. You haven't accounted for this or the things I mentioned above in your "proposal". You've completely dodged the request.

Well that's arguable but suppose for discussion sake I agree with you for the time being? SO WHAT? Putting the trust funds in stock index funds won't have hurt things either. In fact, in all likelihood, it will buy the nincompoops who got us into this mess in the first place a little more time to figure out what to do. So what's you REAL objection?

That you're just whining and have no viable solution to replace social security. Oh, you've tried to dance around it by saying you can better manage the surplus while it exists. But you've complained that workers can better invest the money themselves. Social security seems to be a bad thing to you. But, you offer nothing to deal with the problem you complain about ... other than whining about it.

Oh, yeah. Just as an aside, you have a wonderful future in the goalpost moving business ... if you ever decide to pursue a different career. Just sayin'.

Actually, what Bush proposed was a start to doing that. But you democrats won't even allow that measly little beginning. The truth is that you don't want to change the system because it makes people totally dependent on the government.

Bush's proposal did nothing to deal with the problem at hand. It did nothing to deal with the projected shortfall. He dodged the issue just as you are now. He takes money out of a pay as you go system now while decreasing expenditures not now -- but for the retirement generation following the baby boomers. You've offered nothing of substance except your usual partisan wankery, bluster and whining. It appears to be all you've got.

TOTALLY FALSE. All Bush proposed was that FOUR PERCENT of contributions go into personal accounts invested in stocks. A FOUR PERCENT reduction in new contributions to the "fund" will NOT cause the surplus to begin disappearing NOW.

Sorry, but this is simple economics, sir. If you take revenue out of the system, the revenue declines. And just so things are clear, Bush wanted to take about 65% of the 6.2%. That's a 65% decrease in revenue coming from current workers (employee share) that opt into the privatization that Bush proposed. Unless you're going to decrease expenditures at the same time as well, the surplus will decline and disappear accordingly. You and Bush want to allow current contributors to redirect their payroll taxes, but offer no explanation for how to fund current and near-future retirees with even less revenue being available in a pay as you go system. Sir, you've failed at addressing the request. Here it is ... again ...

How do you propose to close out social security without leaving current and near retirees out in the cold? Describe it. How do you pay for current and near-future retirees already too far committed to social security being there while at the same time doing away with social security withholdings for younger workers and letting them invest in their own retirement? And don't forget that without young contributors to social security, we start drawing down the surplus right now in a big way.

 

[Kestrel]

What would you call a system that spends all the monies collected at the time of collection whilst telling the payees that said money would be used for their benefit in the future?

I call that a strawman argument. The people who designed the Social Security system never described it that way.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So why can't the assets be better invested until then?... snip ...

Never said it couldn't be

The heck you didn't. When I pointed out that the trust fund was collecting more in new contributions than being paid out so that the trust fund was available to better invest, you responded "What about baby boomers about to retire don't you understand? That's what the surplus was created for with changes made to social security back in the 80's. Are you really this ignorant about the issue?" So don't try to tell me you didn't say it couldn't be invested better. That's exactly what your response implies.

You're not doing away with social security

Well that should make a liberal absolutely gleeful!

You folks have argued that Social Security is not an "investment" system. You and the SSA call it "retirement INSURANCE". But to call it insurance is frankly dishonest. Any type of REAL insurance (from car, to fire, to earthquake, to life, etc) that you can name works by spreading the risk of something happening in a given time out amongst many, many people ... far more than will actually suffer that loss in that time. ALL the people are not expected to suffer the injury they are insuring themselves against in that time ... only a small portion. And the insurance company has data to show that is true. That's how they determine the premiums. The companies that successfully offer insurance (i.e., stay in business over time) tailor the premiums so that the money that comes in will meet the future needs of those who bought it at the time. They do that by properly investing that money. And finally, you aren't forced to buy insurance. If you elect not to but suffer the loss, too bad. It's called being responsible for your own actions and decisions. It's a lesson in learning not to be a *victicrat*.

But Social Security is different. Everyone is FORCED (at the point of a gun) to enroll. And more important, ALL the people in the system fully EXPECT to retire. And health care has made it likely that most of them actually will retire within the retirement age established by the SSA. The risk is not to a few but to almost everyone. Almost everyone will collect, not just a few. And the SSA has NEVER collected enough and then invested it properly in order to pay for the needs of those already in the system. Plus, the SSA makes payments to many people who never put a dime into the system. So Social Security is either one of two things. Welfare or the biggest ponzi scheme of all time. Now one of those is illegal by our laws. So like I originally stated in this thread, SS must be welfare in disguise.

Now some of you have admitted that, but many of you still don't. You are one of them, Pookster. And if you can't admit that, how could you ever hope to actually fix the system? And what right have you to complain about any solution that anyone else makes when you have none yourself? I've offered here a way to start a transition to a more viable system. I haven't suggested eliminating welfare. I have insisted that we need to call welfare, welfare ... and separate the welfare component out of the SS "retirement" system so that it can be properly addressed. As for the retirement component, I've suggested that the first thing we should do is better invest the trust fund and allow a tiny fraction of new contributions to have a name on it (the name of the contributor) and be invested in stocks so that a badly needed change in perceptions can begin.

Because the treatment plan for a failing welfare system is different than for a failing "retirement/insurance" company. Part of the treatment plan requires making people more responsible FOR THEIR OWN ACTIONS. Because most insurance is for events and losses that the person insured has no or little control over. But one's retirement is something that most people have considerable control over and for which they can make plans. One reason I will have a sound retirement is because I didn't buy some of the things that many at the lowest income level routinely spend large amounts of money on. Like I showed, even $600 dollars a year (what those making under $10,000 spend on average on lottery tickets each year) can became a sizable lump of money if invested properly. Allowing people the opportunity to invest about that amount of money in stocks instead of throwing it into the SS trust (slush) fund, will help them to see that.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Had the SSA put contributions into the stock funds like the S&P500 70 years ago when the program first started seventy years ago, we wouldn't even be discussing this. ... snip ...

The surplus we have didn't get built into the system until the 80s.

The system has ALWAYS had a surplus and that surplus over most of the years has grown each year. Just look at the SSA tables I linked. In the very beginning I showed what the maximum contribution one could make in 1951 would have become if properly invested compared to what the SSA's investment became. The SSA table I linked indicates that at the end of 1937, the first year of SS, the trust fund had $766 million dollars in it and receipts far exceeded expenditures. If the SSA had taken that $766 million and invested it in the S&P 500, then assuming 9.2% return (accounting for inflation), that one year's contribution would now be worth $432 BILLION.

So all you are doing is spinning out a rational to let you avoid facing up to an awful truth. The system doesn't work and needs to be changed. Your statement earlier that we need to live with things the way they are because its a "political reality" is only going to dig us deeper into the quagmire.

You've offered nothing

You are just spinning to avoid even beginning a transition to something else. You democrats won't even let a measly 20 billion a year be devoted to something that makes more sense. That's how hopelessly mired you are in this quagmire democrats built.

Your numbers are flaky at best.

Spin spin spin. At every turn I've shown you are wrong. The numbers come from the SSA. If they are flaky (if the trust fund doesn't actually exist ... as one of you suggested ... and its all a lie), then you have an even bigger problem than you imagine. But then you were totally in denial about the lies and illegalities of the Clinton adminstration, so what should we expect?

But then you haven't shown how you're going to offset the loss in contributions to a pay as you go system.

By the way, Pookster, "pay as you go" is just another way of admitting that SS is a ponzi scheme. Which is illegal because it harms almost everyone downstream. Are you admitting that a democrat adminstration created the biggest ponzi scheme of all time?

So what's you REAL objection?

That you're just whining and have no viable solution to replace social security.

But I have offered a solution.

Invest the trust in something better.

Reform the system so that the welfare and retirement components are separate and then let the people on an on-going/yearly basis decide what portions of that welfare they want to support. Let the people see the real cost of all that welfare to the country.

Teach people to be more responsible with their money along the road of life. We can start that process by making them feel ownership ... by establishing Personal Retirement Accounts ... and showing them how to invest wisely in what has made this country great ... its economic system.

Stop pretending like SS is insurance. Stop pretending that it isn't a ponzi scheme.

Stop this process that is slowly, but inexorably, bankrupting the country by building the biggest entitlement system of all time with FALSE expections. Entitlements that in many cases may not have been earned or be deserved.

Now "dance around" that, Pookster.

Bush's proposal did nothing to deal with the problem at hand.

FALSE. It deal with the root problem of this diseased SS system.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
TOTALLY FALSE. All Bush proposed was that FOUR PERCENT of contributions go into personal accounts invested in stocks. A FOUR PERCENT reduction in new contributions to the "fund" will NOT cause the surplus to begin disappearing NOW.

Sorry, but this is simple economics, sir. If you take revenue out of the system, the revenue declines.

But the surplus doesn't. You're using the same false (and dishonest) logic that democrats use all the time. Calling a reduction in growth, a cut.

And just so things are clear, Bush wanted to take about 65% of the 6.2%.

This is a TOTAL distortion of the truth. It shows a complete lack of understanding of what was proposed. Bush's proposal called for giving people the option of allocating up to 4% of the 12.4% they have to contribute to a PRA. In fact, since almost all of the contributions to SS currently come from the group that makes $25,000 or more, Bush's proposal (which capped PRA contributions initially at $1,100) is actually closer to 1 percent of all new contributions. At a time when for the next 9 PLUS years the system will STILL be increasing the size of the trust fund surplus. That is in no way a proposal that will "cause the surplus to begin disappearing NOW" like you claimed.

The ugly truth is that what you want to do is STILL going to see the trust fund surplus start to decrease about 9 years from now. It doesn't matter whether we allow about 1 percent of the contributions to go to something else. But that little act might change the whole way we look at it and how we go about fixing it. Call it a test bed, if you like.

That's a 65% decrease in revenue coming from current workers (employee share) that opt into the privatization that Bush proposed.

ROTFLOL! No wonder you feared Bush's proposal so much. You were COMPLETELY misinformed about it. Of course, perhaps I can't really blame you since your democrat leaders (like Pelosi and Reid) lied to you about it.

 

[boloboffin]

But Social Security is different. Everyone is FORCED (at the point of a gun) to enroll.

I missed that part of my company's orientation process.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by JEROME DA GNOME
What would you call a system that spends all the monies collected at the time of collection whilst telling the payees that said money would be used for their benefit in the future?

I call that a strawman argument. The people who designed the Social Security system never described it that way.

Oh yeah? The Committee on Economic Security (now isn't that a socialist sounding name) was the group that designed SS. Here's a KEY document they wrote back then and an excerpt from it:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/reports/ces/ces5.html

OLD-AGE SECURITY

To meet the problem of security for the aged we suggest as complementary measures non-contributory old-age pensions, compulsory contributory annuities, and voluntary contributory annuities, all to be applicable on retirement at age 65 or over.

Only non-contributory old-age pensions will meet the situation of those who are now old and have no means of support. Laws for the payment of old-age pensions on a needs basis are in force in more than half of all States and should be enacted everywhere. Because most of the dependent aged are now on relief lists and derive their support principally from the Federal Government and many of the States cannot assume the financial burden of pensions unaided, we recommend that the Federal Government pay one-half the cost of old-age pensions but not more than $15 per month for any individual.

The satisfactory way of providing for the old age of those now young is a contributory system of old-age annuities. This will enable younger workers, with matching contributions from their employers, to build up a more adequate old-age protection than it is possible to achieve with non-contributory pensions based upon a means test. To launch such a system we deem it necessary that workers who are now middle-aged or older and who, therefore, cannot in the few remaining years of their industrial life accumulate a substantial reserve be, nevertheless, paid reasonably adequate annuities upon retirement. These Government contributions to augment earned annuities may either take the form of assistance under old age pension laws on a more liberal basis than in the case of persons who have made no contributions or by a Government subsidy to the contributory annuity system itself. A portion of these particular annuities will come out of Government funds, but because receipts from contributions will in the early years greatly exceed annuity payments, it will not be necessary as a financial problem to have Government contributions until after the system has been in operation for 30 years. The combined contributory rate we recommend is 1 percent of pay roll to be divided equally between employers and employees, which is to be increased by 1 percent each 5 years, until the maximum of 5 percent is reached in 20 years.

There still remains, unprotected by either of the two above plans, professional and self-employed groups, many of whom face dependency in old age. Partially to meet their problem, we suggest the establishment of a voluntary Government annuity system, designed particularly for people of small incomes.

Note the bolded section. It does indeed tell payees that said money would be used for their benefit in the future.

 

[BeAChooser]

I missed that part of my company's orientation process.

They may not have shown you the gun, but it's there. Believe me.

 

[boloboffin]

They may not have shown you the gun, but it's there. Believe me.

 

[Pookster]

The heck you didn't. When I pointed out that the trust fund was collecting more in new contributions than being paid out so that the trust fund was available to better invest, you responded "What about baby boomers about to retire don't you understand? That's what the surplus was created for with changes made to social security back in the 80's. Are you really this ignorant about the issue?" So don't try to tell me you didn't say it couldn't be invested better. That's exactly what your response implies.

Again. I've stated the system is inherently inefficient. I've stated you may well be able to mange the surplus while it exists better. Your obtuseness is duly noted though.

Well that should make a liberal absolutely gleeful!

<snip nonresponsive gibberish>

Sir, what is your proposal to close out social security without leaving current and near retirees out in the cold? Describe it. How do you pay for current and near-future retirees already too far committed to social security being there while at the same time doing away with social security withholdings for younger workers and letting them invest in their own retirement? And don't forget that without young contributors to social security, we start drawing down the surplus right now in a big way.

But I have offered a solution.

You've completely dodged the request, sir. It's as simple as that. All your talk of managing the surplus better while it exists isn't doing away with social security. You can post all the nonsensical partisan gibberish you want, but you've failed to address what has been requested of you.

FALSE. It deal with the root problem of this diseased SS system.

Sorry, it doesn't deal with the shortfall. Moving the goalposts doesn't work with me. Try a different tactic.

So once again, I'll ask ... what is your proposal to close out social security without leaving current and near retirees out in the cold? Describe it. How do you pay for current and near-future retirees already too far committed to social security being there while at the same time doing away with social security withholdings for younger workers and letting them invest in their own retirement? And don't forget that without young contributors to social security, we start drawing down the surplus right now in a big way.

You do want to do away with social security, don't you? Lets hear how you do it. Or are you only whining about it as I suspected?

 

[BeAChooser]

Your obtuseness is duly noted though.

Your inability to recall what you claimed is duly noted.

<snip nonresponsive gibberish>

Sir, what is your proposal to close out social security without leaving current and near retirees out in the cold?

I have nothing further to say to you. If you are simply going to dismiss as non-responsive everything I wrote, this discussion is over. I'll stand by what I wrote on this thread. You can stand by what you wrote. You can stand by all the misinformation you posted about the system and Bush's proposal. You can stand by your refusal to even entertain solutions that might get us on the right track. You can stand by your failure to see the underlying problem in the system. Yes, you can stand by your steadfast defense of a system that will eventually bankrupt the country on the basis that it's a "political reality". I'm sure the suckers will eat it up and cough more of their earnings into that black hole you defend. It's Beggars and Choosers. But my advice, folks, is Be A Chooser.

 

[Pookster]

Your inability to recall what you claimed is duly noted.

Your ability to ignore what I said is duly noted as well.

I have nothing further to say to you. If you are simply going to dismiss as non-responsive everything I wrote, this discussion is over. ...

I knew you had nothing. I thought I'd ask though. I can be silly sometimes like that.